Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I agree that Knight probably isn't doing as much homework as he should, but what he adds to the game, I like. A lot. Regardless of whether you like him or not, he is one of the best coaches in the history of the game. Fran, on the other hand, sucked. So who's opinion of the game of basketball is worth more? I know my answer.
Their coaching resumes are irrlevant to me.
You could have John Freaking Wooden doing the games, but if he never watches the teams in question play -- other than when he's doing the games -- he's just not going to add anything interesting, in my opinion.
I don't need Bob Knight to tell me that a pump-fake will get the defender in the air, or an extra pass will help get a shooter open, or sometimes a team will let up after getting a big lead (a gem from last night). Anybody who has watched college basketball consistently for more than a year knows these things.
Using last night's example... here's what I'm talking about.
Bob Knight analysis: "Sometimes teams build a big lead and the natural tendancy is to let up a little bit."
Instead of that, how about something like this:
"This is very similar to what happened to Kansas in the [whatever] game. However, they were able to get back on track by [doing whatever]."
This latter analysis is something I hear Fran do all the time. It's the difference between some generic analysis and and an interesting, team-specific analysis.
I'm not saying Fran is perfect, because he isn't. He's apt to make some of the same generic comments.
But at the same time I do feel like he watches more games than just the ones that he calls. Because I hear him point specific comments out about a given team's performance in past games... things that you would only get from watching them, not just scanning the box score.
Also, let me say that DO very much enjoy Knight in the studio. I think he's a fresh and (often) hilarious addition to ESPN's studio show... I just don't like him doing games.
